Posted by: Jim | March 28, 2007

Chocolate Droppings

This week, the Dems have passed a non-binding bill through both sides of Congress that requires a pull-out of most of our troops by September 2008. It’s quite ambitious, and a laudable though effete effort. It is, after all, non-binding. Rather than risk their political careers by filibustering the bill, the Republicans are merely handing this off to the President to veto. The story will end there, with insignificant historical earmarks that the President defied the will of the people. Fine fine.But McCain’s response to this bill is what I find most curious. He’s going about the Republican business of reframing the argument. The Reps have known the power of being able to frame the argument from 1995 until 2007. Now that the “Iraq War,” is under attack from a Democrat-controlled House and Senate the Republicans are still using the tactic, even though they no longer control the little button on the megaphone.McCain said, “this bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act.” This causes me to ask, “what are we surrendering?” Are we surrendering the War on Terrorism? I hardly think so. Are we surrendering Iraq? If we are, then that assumes that Iraq is ours. It is not. It is Iraq’s. So I will pose this open question to Senator McCain. What are we surrendering, sir?

I suppose the freedom to rename things is Constitutionally guaranteed, so in order to support our troops, I would like to exercise this freedom that they are fighting for.

Old Name:         Senator John McCain           
New Name:      The Guy who wouldn’t have won the primaries anyway, so he will go on record as supporting the Iraq War in order to give it credibility.

Old Name:        The Iraq War
New Name:      The occupation of a civil-war-torn country whose only purpose is to deny the irrationality of its inception.

Old Name:        “When Iraq Stands Up,  We’ll Stand Down.”
New Name:      We can’t tell you when Iraq will stand up or how that is defined. If we do, it will embolden the enemy. Just trust us.

Old Name:         Domestic Spying
New Name:       The iniative our Government can’t tell you about. It’s secret. If you know what it is, you’re already in prison.

Old Name:         Torture of innocent detainees
New Name:       Terrorist Creation Factories

Old Name:         Valerie Plame
New Name:       The woman who might have warned us about Iran’s Nuclear program in time–if only she hadn’t been outed by Bush’s team.

Old Name:         George W. Bush
New Name:       The reason why George H. W. Bush wept in public.

Submit your own!



  1. nice one, jimmy.

    * * *

  2. Old Name: Political Bullshit

    New Name: Same Old Political Bullshit

  3. It’s Valerie Plame, not Dorothy, Jim.

    McCain is a joke, even Republicans don’t take him seriously. I saw his blustering response on Fox, and there was no real content. He has to move from criticising Bush to bashing Democrats, as his polling shows him having stalled behind Guiliani.

    Some really vapid, hate-filled bluster is coming from Sean Hannity, he’s a great example of the rage that is induced from believing White House spin. The way he joins the dots is very satisfying.

    If the Dems had not managed to pass the bill, we’d be sat here in the midst of just a different right-wing spin on a ‘toothless Dem caucus’ and ‘A house divided?’ and so on. The levels of hate and right-wing bias appears to be peaking again on the cable news networks, I think the Dems are obviously touching some nerves.

  4. Glad you’re back Jim, that was a long week without you!

  5. Thanks KF. Yes, work has been so busy that I’ve actually had to take stuff with me into the can in order to be ready for the next big meeting. It’s going to be like this for awhile.

    And I don’t know why I keep calling Valerie Dorothy. I’ve done it at least 10 times. Maybe I once knew a Dorothy Plame?

  6. Maybe because we’re not in Kansas anymore?

    * * *

  7. Old Name: Vidkun Quisling
    New Name: Nancy Pelosi

    Bring it on.

  8. I had given Venjanz some calm down time, but Jim’s post, with the alternative explanations, had, at least, some grounding in fact. But what does Nancy Pelosi have to do with Vidkun Quisling, beyond your own foul prejudices? Vidkun Quisling was a fascist for a start, so he would’ve got along great with the right, and he was executed by firing squad, his name becoming synonymous with collaboration. Who is Pelosi collaborating with, outside of the Democratic Caucus.

    You clearly have no sense of what is decent, like normal people have, for filtering out something unpalatable, and choosing a middle road. Or, as is more likely, you simply calculate to offend, like the Gods of your kind of speak, who have also used the Quisling thing, those talking assholes on the right-wing cable shows.

    I wish you were capable of shame for what you wrote there. It has nothing to do with debate or humor, but everything to what has been normalised in your sad little world.

  9. Thank you for your response. I’m sure that we are all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: